Do women feel as if they're being told 'you shouldn't have a section'???

[tiktok]

Various organisations, including NCT, campaign for choice of place of birth and type of birth, and point to the rising caesarean section rate with concern. This is because the high numbers contrast with the likely figure of women and babies who need a section for medical reasons. It also reflects concern that on the whole, recovery after a section can be longer and more difficult. I don't think this is the equivalent of telling individual women they shouldn't have sections (clearly, the op is life saving for some, anyway), but this is how it seems to be interpreted. Comments?

message withdrawn

In retrospect, I wish I could have demanded a section with dd when it was clear she was in distress. Her heartbeat was irregular and we discovered she'd 'emptied' herself when the midwife (unnaturally?) performed an A.R.M. We carried on with the 'planned' natural delivery but had to wait ages for an obs. to attend as he was busy elsewhere. I dread to think how much her care is now costing the NHS.

So IMO I had every right to demand a section with ds. I was a lot more relaxed the second time round. I was on entinox with dd so memories are hazy but I can remember a lot more of ds's birth.

regarding risk of c sections.

my neighbour recently collpased when abroad and discovereed later in an INdonesian hospital that she had colon injury from her c section 15 years earlier

so these things can lie dormant

I had much opposition to a homebirth depsite having a "textbook" case for one.
Had I asked for a section, it would have been received with much less horror by my GP and OBGYN than a homebirth!
Also re C Section recovery rates, The NCt do not state that EVERY woman takes 6 weeks to recover, the op is major abdominal surgery not without a degree of risk.
Recovery is largely dependent on luck! I ahve one friend who was driving the week after and has had terrific healing
And 4 others with average experiences, 4-6 weeks til felt pretty ok to do housework and normal running around again
And one who died... From a blood infection in her womb post section. And two more one of whom had her scar rupture and now has had to have a partial hysterectomy and is now infertile, and another (currently pregnant now and having to have an early section at 32 weeks, as part of her womb was damaged during her last section (emergency).
I would never force my views on anyone, birth is a personal choice, but I think a section should be more medical than optional! For one thing the cost!!!!!

Not much to add only to say that I had an unplanned cs with DD but I STILL GAVE BIRTH . That fact is very important. Like many things in life, there are different ways of doing things. Having a cs is one way to give birth to a child, virginally is another, naturally with no pain relif one way, with intervention another. No one way is any less worthwhile than another. I think it is very important for ALL woman that that is fact.

I think maybe the reasons for elective cs's need looking at. Work committments over the needs of a child is of concern I agree. BUT even then there may be very good reasons for this to occur too.

I don't plan any more children but if I do I am still unsure of which way I would go following DD's birth. I know I would NEVER allow another induction. If the only way to avoid that was an elective cs - then I would go that way. I don't see why anyone should be able to tell me otherwise. Sorry.

"You surely wouldn't suggest compulsory counselling for women who want homebirths or epidurals or any other kind of birth experience? "

I don't care for compulsory anything, but I think all women should have the opportunity to discuss their birth options, yes.....call it counselling if you like. And the same goes for any choice - home birth, epidural, whatever. I made it clear I didn't mean counselling as therapy!!

Going back to the original post, actually I find the NCT (and yes, that's probably just as much reputation as anything else) pretty damn anti intervention like epidurals. I felt very much that I couldn't go near the NCT in my first pg when I was absolutely sure I'd want a light epidural, thank you very much - and guess what, I was absolutely right.

Incidentally, re recovery time - nothing to do with the epidural, but I'd say it took me six weeks to get over my (vaginal) first birth.

To me the question isn't so much, "should a woman have a right to an elective section" as, "should a woman have the right to it on the NHS if it's otherwise medically unadvised". I don't care what Odent says, every other source I've seen suggests that for an otherwise low risk pregnancy/mother CS carries more risks to mother and baby than a trial vaginal birth. To expect the NHS to adopt a policy of saying yes to any CS for these low-risk mothers in the name of maternal "choice" would be silly, and bad usage of our tax money.

Zebra, there are no stats at all on women who choose a c-section with local anaesthesia with no other medical reason. All the doctors I have spoken to say that this is not a risky procedure - and is no more risky than a vaginal birth - and indeed may be safer for the baby. Of course the stats make it look more dangerous - it includes lots of women who have elective c-s early and with life-threatening conditions, like my placenta praevia at 37/1/2 weeks.

Also I suspect a bid to reduce c-section rates - particularly without making other far reaching changes in the NHS, such as an adequate number of midwives - is a recipe for tragedy. If doctors are afraid to recommend a c-s because it will be 'bad for the statistics' then woman and babies may suffer and maybe even die.

I also think that the demand for elective c-sections might fall naturally if women felt even remotely confident that they would get an epidural when they wanted one or the type of epidural they wanted. But the NCT doesn't campaign for this at all. There are lots of hospitals that don't offer 24 hour anaesthetist cover for women in labour. I think that's a disgrace.

going back to informed choice, there are lots of potential disadvantages to epidurals - organizations like the NCT appear "anti" when they try to point these out. women should be made aware of the risks of epidurals just the same way they should be made aware of the risks of c-sections.

i meant to say, they appear "anti" epidural because people misunderstand the motivation for urging people to beware - it's not just "curse of eve" stuff.

Epidurals do, however, have the wonderful virtue of stopping the pain (although mine didn't, admittedly, and I did go down the old 'spiral of intervention'. And it may not all be curse of eve-y, but it is to an extent.

Sodding smiley

mi, that's just it, they don't always stop the pain effectively - it seems v. few women are aware of this. i wasn't before it happened to me - yet epidurals are apparently ineffective in as many as 20% of cases. believe me, an ineffective epi is something to consider before having one, because chances are they will still need to top you up with syntocynon - not, not, not fun.

oh sorry, i think i misread your post.

You probably didn't misread it, I wasn't very clear. Thing is, even though my epi misfired (never trust an anaesthetist who says 'I'm 85 per cent sure that's in right' AND then labour stopped and was re-started, and yes I did think 'oh hell, what have I done', and indeed end up having an emergency ventouse...I still came out of the whole thing swearing that drugs, drugs, and only drugs could have got me through.

Hulababy ROFL @ virginally! Is your real name Mary

LOL CD!!! Must learn to preview - ooops! Not my name, although DD's name is apparantly a pet name form of Mary.

Zerub - my grandfather was born by c-s in 1913, and his mother was as far as I know ok afterwards. I only know that because he was apparently the first baby to be born by c-s at the town's hospital, so it was presumably exceptional at the time.

Quick aside to Nutty - are there very specific reasons why you can't have more children, other than having had 3 sections? And have you asked for a second opinion? My hospital will monitor you more carefully after 3 c/s's but they can't put a limit on it... What would happen if you became pg anyway - they surely can't refuse to treat you?

Haven't had my third yet, but no hint so far that it would have to be my last.

Aloha - totally agree with you!

Incidentally my mother has always told me, proudly, that her aunt was one of the pioneers of C-sections done horizontally rather than vertically. Needless to say, it took a woman doctor (and an Indian woman doctor in the mid 20th century) to work this one out.

Aloha, I'm curious - have you only had one c-section and no vaginal deliveries? I have friends who have had dream 1st emergency sections and nightmare elective 2nd ones, I also have a friend who dies following a section, I have a friend who had a dream section after 2 nightmare vaginal deliveries and friends with dream vaginal deliveries. The point is, every delivery is different.

"all that horrible, undignified writhing in agony for hours, your bits all ripped and stitches in your nether region" versus having all my innards pulled out and about to remove my baby through a man made slit in my stomach/womb? Hmmmm.... neither sound attractive prospects do they?

Also you say your section was "very nice too and not a problem to recover from" but that is, from my experience, not always the case Just like any other birth.

FWIW, I think women should be able to choose how they give birth, c-section included, but I do have a niggling problem with elective c-sections for no medical/phychological reason being on the NHS. I have a friend who had to hire a private midwife at her own expense to get the homebirth she wanted for her VBAC so part of me thinks that women who want a "no good reason" c-section should be prepared to bear the cost. It's not always easy getting the birth you want whatever your preferred delivery method.

BK, all the evidence on epidurals and the so-called spiral of intervention is highly inconclusive. This is for lots of reasons - ie you cannot randomly put women into epidural/non-epidural groups as some change their minds!
Also, yes, long complicated labours tend to occur rather more often with epidurals...BUT...women having long,complicated labours tend to want epidurals rather more than women having brief, uncomplicated labours.
It is impossible to fully randomize trials for other reasons too. One study I looked at said that in one test group, women who had epidurals had longer second stages, BUT when you looked at the figures, there were many more women having first babies in the epidural/long second stage group and the non-epidural/shorter second stage group were predominantly on their second baby - and we all know that second labours are usually shorter and less complicated than first ones anyway.
So the question - do women with painful, prolonged labours tend to opt for epidurals to make their experience more bearable, or do epidurals make labours longer has not been answered. I tend to suspect the former, especially as there is no reliable evidence that epidurals cause caesarians.